Back up MCP config files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the mirror refresh on every run, conditional dated snapshots, synchronous execution, a round-trip md5 verification of the mirror, and that staging happens in /tmp RAM with nothing written to the USB stick. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is backed up and where, then behavior, then the safety detail about /tmp. No filler and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the tool reports ('reports what happened, including a round-trip md5 check of the mirror'), and it covers the one optional parameter and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that the run performs a round-trip md5 check of the mirror, which is precisely what the 'verify' parameter toggles. That contextualizes the single flag beyond its terse schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Back up') plus the exact resource and its distinctive scope: the keenetic-mcp files git cannot restore (.env, watch_rules.json, the Entware init script), and the destination (the NAS). This clearly separates it from the sibling backup_config, which targets router config rather than git-unrecoverable MCP state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'files that git cannot restore' implies the context (complementing version control for untracked secrets), and 'writes a dated snapshot only when the content changed' hints at when it is worth running. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over backup_config or how it relates to list_backups, leaving the routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.